CO885-(11-13) — Page 248

965.

867.

868.

Governor without resorting to the more inconvenient course of procuring another Order in Council.

(12.) That on this point the 161st section of the Order in Council of 1874, taken in connexion with the section immediately preceding, will also deserve consideration, if we should be of opinion that the power of amendment given by it to the Governor is not confined to amending the Orders in Council of 1865, 1867, and 1868, and extends to the Order of 1874.

(13.) That copies of the previous Orders in Council were annexed for reference.

(14.) Mr. Herbert was further pleased to say that we need not consider that part of Mr. Flood's argument which is founded upon the fact of the plans having been altered since they were approved by Her Majesty, as the plan has not yet been examined by the Secretary of State, and he has no knowledge of the character or extent of the alleged alterations, and it would appear that any such deviations may be authorised under sections 48 and 49 of the Order in Council.

(15.) Mr. Herbert added that he was to request that we would report our opinion on this case at our earliest convenience, as the commencement of the public works in question is deferred pending the receipt of your Lordship's instructions in this

matter.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That in our opinion the mistaken recital in the preamble of the Gibraltar Sanitary Order in Council, 1874, does not vitiate the enacting clauses of the instrument.

That as the plans, &c., although not deposited in the registry, had, prior to the making of the Order in Council, been approved by Her Majesty, there is no uncertainty as to the matters authorised to be done; and we think the Commissioners may safely proceed with the works indicated in the plans which have received Her Majesty's approbation.

We have, &c.,

The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,

&c,

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

RICHARD BAGGALLAY. JOHN HOLKER.

L

No. 37.

(NEW SOUTH Wales.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Lincoln's Inn, 14th August, 1874. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Herbert's letter of the 1st instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of a despatch of the 9th of April from the Governor of New South Wales. reporting the proceedings and judgment in the case of R. v. the cargo ex in the Vice-Admiralty Court, and of a correspondence which had taken place between "Aurora," the Colonial Office and the Admiralty upon the questions raised by that despatch, and that he was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our report upon the following questions:-

1. Whether, in our opinion, the construction put upon the Kidnapping Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 19.), by the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sydney was

correct.

2. Whether we concurred with Mr. Bathurst in his opinion that if the cargo of that vessel had been detained at Brisbane instead of being sent to Sydney, the Vice- Admiralty Court of Queensland would have had jurisdiction over it under the Kidnapping Act, 1872.

3. Whether there was, in our opinion, any objection to amending the Imperial Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 19. in the direction pointed out by Mr. Bathurst in the last paragraph of his report, so as to extend the jurisdiction conferred on Vice-Admiralty Courts, not only to cases in which the cargo alone had been brought within the jurisdiction, but to cases in which the captured vessel had not been brought within the jurisdiction of any Vice-Admiralty Court.

And 4. That should we be of opinion that Imperial legislation might properly be resorted to for the above object, your Lordship requested to be favoured with such a sketch of the proposed alteration as might be placed in the hands of a draftsman.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to

Report

That, in our opinion, the construction put upon the Kidnapping Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 19.), by the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sydney is correct. 2. And we concur with Mr. Bathurst in his opinion that if the cargo of the "Aurora" had been detained at Brisbane instead of being sent to Sydney, the Vice- Admiralty Court of Queensland would have had jurisdiction over that cargo under the 18th section of the Kidnapping Act, 1872.

3. We see no objection to amending the Imperial Act 35 & 36 Vict. c. 19., so as to extend the jurisdiction conferred on Vice-Admiralty Courts, not only to cases in which the cargo alone has been brought within the jurisdiction, but to cases in which the captured vessel has not been brought within the jurisdiction of any Vice-Admiralty Court.

4. This alteration may be effected by introducing after the words in section 18 commission of any such offence may "the words" together with the cargo, goods. and effects found therein."

In section 17 the same words, ie., "together with the cargo, goods, and effects found therein," will require adding in three places.

1. After the words "detain any vessel."

2. After the words “take charge of the same.'

3. After the words “detaining any vessel.”

In section 18 the words "or the cargo, goods, or effects, or any part of such cargo,

goods, or effects which may have been on board such vessel at the time of the seizure

65

of such vessel shall be,"should be inserted after the words" before which and instead of the word "is."

any vessel."

▲ 12916.-37. 25.-12/84.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||

C.O.

Reference :-

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

: